People v. Pastrana

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Torres

    251 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    The testimony at the Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 76, cert denied 410 U.S. 911) established that the officer was to return to the arrest area for future undercover work, had been threatened previously, had been assaulted by a lost subject who identified him as a police officer, and took precautions to keep his identity secret whenever his presence was required at hearings or trials. Closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer was therefore warranted here (see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 500, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 574; People v. Pearson, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 443; People v. Pagan, 245 A.D.2d 312; People v. Green, 244 A.D.2d 571; People v. Whiteside, 243 A.D.2d 744; People v. Pryor, 243 A.D.2d 656; People v. Pastrana, 237 A.D.2d 628; People v. Diaz, 237 A.D.2d 457; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310). The defendant's Rosario claim is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, is without merit.

  2. People v. Durant

    250 A.D.2d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 9 times

    The undercover officers testified at a Hinton hearing ( see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, certdenied 410 U.S. 911), that they continued to work in the immediate vicinity, of the defendant's arrest; that they had previously been threatened by other drug suspects; that they had seen the targets of other drug investigations in the courthouse; and that they took measures to prevent their identity as undercover officers from being revealed while they were in the courthouse. This testimony established a sufficient link between the officers' concern for their safety and their open-court testimony so as to warrant closure ( see, People v. Ramos, 235 A.D.2d 556, affd 90 N.Y.2d 490, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, ___ US ___, 118 S Ct 574; People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436; People v. Pastrana, 237 A.D.2d 628). In addition, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in rejecting the defendant's proposed alternative to closure during, the testimony of the two officers.